The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding (the violation of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits) that the Defendant retired from E (hereinafter “E”) as the employer, among workers on the list of crimes set forth in the attached Table of the lower judgment, the period of service of F, Q, H, R, S, G, Z, and AA (hereinafter “workers of this case”) is less than one year, and is not eligible for retirement allowances.

In other words, from February 2012 to September 2012, the instant workers retired from office by themselves and retired from office from office from office to December 2012, 2012 (a part of the workers is up to March 2013) J (hereinafter “J”) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “J”), and thereafter, in January 2013 (a part of the workers are transferred to E in April 2013), their employment relationship was severed during the period of their departure from office.

J is a separate legal entity irrelevant to the defendant, and is not a company de facto controlled by the defendant.

In accordance with the agreement between N and E of the representative director, the J employed the instant workers during the period of the said severance from employment, and the instant workers were paid by J during the period of the said severance from employment.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, which found the Defendant guilty of violating the Act on the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (an amount of five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court’s determination on the assertion of misunderstanding the facts (the violation of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits) 1 also argues that this part of the appeal is the same as the grounds for appeal, and the lower court, based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated, did not prepare a letter of resignation or a labor contract regarding resignation and re-employment, and ② the Defendant submitted a certificate of promotion for the J and E against the instant workers, but the said documents were presented.